It's official - Video Games are good for you

[Tig]

...other aspects of gaming might also play a role: the heightened awareness created by a sense of danger, the sensory overload of sounds, colours and action, or the challenge of beating other players.

She would like to tease apart those effects, so that she can create programs that improve visual performance without exposing patients to the violent images that dominate many of the games

NEWSFLASH!

The World of Science is on the verge of discovering the Abstract Concept of "GAMEPLAY", at least 20 years after the World of Geeks.

I know what they're going to do. They're going to scientifically pick games apart in a clinical, soulless way, clusmily butchering the gameplay. They will then wonder why their 'visual program' isn't as popular as Halo, and they will draw the conclusion that gamers will only play if 'violent images' are included. Cue Daily Mail outrage.

It's quite hilarious, really, that it takes a team of scientists to determin the difference between graphics and gameplay. Why the **** do you need to "tease apart" the effects of games to remove the violence? Just change character/gun models, remove blood, and that's it. It really is not complicated.

[Oh! My Car!]

HA! retards

[srgbilco]

It's quite hilarious, really, that it takes a team of scientists to determin the difference between graphics and gameplay. Why the **** do you need to "tease apart" the effects of games to remove the violence? Just change character/gun models, remove blood, and that's it. It really is not complicated.

Not quite. Violent/action games have a tense, "scary", disorientating athmosphere to complete n00bs. So the scientists want to remove this athmosphere before giving it to vulnerable patients like stroke victims.

If they took your lead, and replaced the character models with, say, cheese and the guns with a blob that shoots mice, you may have removed the superficial aspects of violence, but it's stilll the same thing. Enough mice/bullets would "kill" a cheese, enough mice fired at you would still end the game, so the tension is still there, as well as the control scheme, hence the disorientation. So it hasn't really changed at all.

[Tig]

It's quite hilarious, really, that it takes a team of scientists to determin the difference between graphics and gameplay. Why the **** do you need to "tease apart" the effects of games to remove the violence? Just change character/gun models, remove blood, and that's it. It really is not complicated.

Not quite. Violent/action games have a tense, "scary", disorientating athmosphere to complete n00bs. So the scientists want to remove this athmosphere before giving it to vulnerable patients like stroke victims.

If they took your lead, and replaced the character models with, say, cheese and the guns with a blob that shoots mice, you may have removed the superficial aspects of violence, but it's stilll the same thing. Enough mice/bullets would "kill" a cheese, enough mice fired at you would still end the game, so the tension is still there, as well as the control scheme, hence the disorientation. So it hasn't really changed at all.

I see your point. But tension and voilence aren't the same thing. Anything where there's a risk of losing will be 'tense'. To remove voilence you can just get rid of the blood, but to remove the tension... well, you need to get rid of the challenge. Which would make it a bit pointless.

Really, though, any exercise where you're improving your ability to deal with large numbers of objects IS going to be disorientating. Disorientation is part and parcel of participating with reaction-based challenges. If it isn't disorentating, then it means you're already good at it... right?

[Oh! My Car!]

for real....lol